h Supreme Court Justice Jeff Hughes III took the stand for the second day Thursday in his defamation suit against h, answering questions by the newspaper’s attorneys about being disciplined by the commission that oversees judicial ethics.

Hughes is seeking $10 million in damages over a 2019 editorial stemming from stories that focused on his alleged ethical lapse as a Livingston Parish district judge in a late 1990s child custody case.

The hours of cross-examination followed Hughes' earlier testimony about his upbringing as a Denham Springs multi-sport athlete, his time as a country lawyer and his rise through the judicial system to the state’s highest court.

Under questioning by his attorneys, Hughes told jurors he was embarrassed by the stories and opinion pieces by h, which he claims were inaccurate, and even faced questions by his mother.

"She's asking me, like why are they doing this? When are they gonna stop? What's this all about?" Hughes testified Wednesday.

On Wednesday and Thursday, under cross examination by Louisian’s attorneys, he faced questions about past discipline taken against him as a judge and his use of campaign dollars to fund his pursuit of defamation lawsuits against his critics.

Eighteenth Judicial District Judge Kevin Kimball has limited the case to a single editorial published on June 25, 2019. The judge has allowed into evidence several other stories and columns to allow Hughes to try to prove the paper refused his demands to correct the alleged error.

The articles focused on Hughes' handling of a custody case while he was a Livingston Parish district judge that included an attorney with whom he became romantically involved.

While Hughes testified he has several problems with the editorial's factual claims and the framing of the news account, much of the case centers on whether he was ruling on the custody case of a child while dating the boy’s mother's onetime attorney, Berkley Durbin.

At the time, in 1998 and 1999, the then-5-year-old's grandmother, Brenda Nicholson, was fighting unsuccessfully to keep the boy's mother from getting custody. The case triggered an FBI probe and an investigation by the disciplinary arm for the judges, the Judiciary Commission. 

On the stand, Hughes denied having ruled on any of Durbin's cases while they were dating, which he says started after she left the Nicholson case in August 1998.

Louisian’s attorneys questioned that assertion, citing court minutes showing Hughes presided over a case where Durbin was reported present on July 6, 1999 -- a time when Hughes acknowledges he was dating her. Though a separate document outlining the judgment shows a different lawyer signed the order, Hughes acknowledged sometimes one attorney may attend a hearing on a matter but another signs the order.

Also under cross-examination, Hughes testified Wednesday that three apology letters he wrote in 2004 to former child custody litigants in two cases in his courtroom were issued to resolve an unspecified "other investigation" into his conduct that had been running in parallel with the FBI probe into the same cases.

In the letters, Hughes apologized for the harm his actions — which weren’t described in detail — may have caused. At least one of the cases had triggered a probe by the Judiciary Commission.

"I offered to write this letter," Hughes said about one of them, and the agency accepted his proposal.

Hughes said the FBI probe was dropped in 2004 after the five-year window for such an inquiry expired. He testified the FBI found no wrongdoing, but kept looking, even checking to whom he may have sent flowers from a florist shop.

Under questioning by attorneys for h, Hughes acknowledged spending campaign dollars to fund a defamation lawsuit he brought against Lana Venable, who was with a group that advocates against abuse of the legal system, and to pay court costs for his case against h.

Suzy Montero, one of h's attorneys, said in court that state law and other rules bar using campaign dollars for personal expenses. But the judge said he had gotten a legal opinion from an ethics attorney that he could use campaign dollars because the cases arose out of his public office.

Brought months after his June 2020 lawsuit against h, Hughes’ case against Venable accused of her of defamation for a letter-to-the-editor she wrote that was published in the newspaper. In it, she argued the ethics case involving Hughes underscored the need for greater transparency in judicial discipline. 

On cross-examination, Montero asked Hughes if he had received advance knowledge in 2021 of a state supreme court ruling letting stand an early decision from Kimball favorable to the justice’s lawsuit against h. Montero suggested Hughes used that information to call Venable's attorney to say that Louisian had lost and it was time for Venable to pay.

Hughes disputed Montero's suggestion it was a shakedown, saying he simply made a settlement offer of $25,000. Venable's attorney is expected to testify later in the trial.

Montero also asked Hughes why he told h reporter Andrea Gallo in a 2019 meeting with reporters and editors that he wasn't aware of any other apology letters besides the one he sent to Nicholson.

Hughes testified he hadn't remembered at the time that he had written the two other letters, which were dated the same day he sent the one to Nicholson.

Hughes’ attorneys have called a handful of witnesses to the stand to testify to the justice’s good character and how Louisian’s reporting affected his reputation.

Former Livingston Parish schools Superintendent Warren Curtis, who has known Hughes since childhood, on Thursday recalled people talking about the articles.

Curtis — who grew up raising cattle — recounted a warning his father passed on to him upon college graduation: Be sure of your facts before you brand the cow because the mark remains.

David J. Mitchell can be reached at dmitchell@theadvocate.com.